Legal aid for the needy backed by survey

Some rare good news for legal aid lawyers: even in this age of austerity the great British public still sees the value in our increasingly threadbare system of publicly funded law.

A study commissioned by YouGov for the legal research company Jures indicates that over two-thirds (68%) of consumers backed the notion that "if someone was too poor to afford a lawyer and they had a need for serious legal advice" then "the state should pay for all their legal advice through the legal aid system". "Serious legal need" was defined, in the poll of more than 2,000 people, as being sacked unfairly or losing your home.

"The public instinctively understands the importance of legal aid as a vital safety net to protect the poor and vulnerable, even if our politicians sadly don't," says Patrick Allen, a veteran legal aid lawyer and senior partner of Hodge Jones & Allen. The Jures research included interviews with 100 shoppers, asking them what circumstances should make a person eligible: 69% said earning less than £25,000 and 59% said being on welfare benefits.

This is not the only research that has documented the popular support for our beleaguered system of legal aid. The Legal Services Board at the end of last year asked consumers what they really wanted from the bright shiny new world of law as promised by the Legal Services Act.

From next year supermarkets and banks will be able to offer legal services as a consequence of New Labour's liberalising reform agenda. So, does the prospect of "Tesco Law" excite ordinary people as much as it does legal commentators? Well, not really. Only 3% wanted supermarkets and banks to provide legal services. In contrast, 52% of those surveyed did want an NHS Direct service for legal problems and 50% wanted to see more drop-in legal centres in the community.

The support for such services tallies with the reality of people's access to justice. It is a luxury many of us can no longer afford and, even if we could, popping down our local solicitors' firm isn't the way we want it.

The Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland nailed legal aid's image problem when he described it as "the most friendless wing of the welfare state". The issues around access to justice are technical, remote and fail to move the public when discussed in the abstract; it's a different story if the bailiff is at your door or you have just lost your job. Worst of all, the debate sounds to ordinary people suspiciously as if it is all about how lawyers get paid. The "Billy-no-mates" status makes legal aid a soft target for ministers in the new Lib-Con coalition seeking to identify places for swingeing cuts.

But, does the public see the legitimacy in an adequately funded safety net for the poor and vulnerable? Yes, of course, they do.

Jon Robins is a freelance journalist and director of the legal research company Jures which last month published Closing the Justice Gap, a collection of essays of "radical, exciting and innovative ways to reform access to justice".